Re: Re: POLITICS - celebrities and VIP's

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/8/04 8:26:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Means? He was and may still be one of the original founders of the

> American Indian Movement. All Native American tribes in the U.S. try to

> maintain to this day what's left of their egalitarian, pre contact way of

> life despite the bureauracracy of agencies and U.S. government appointed

> chiefs.

That's exactly why Libertarianism is appropriate for Native Americans.

Libertarianism allows people to engage in whatever kind of voluntary

associations

they want, and thus allows for both individualist and collectivist social

arrangements.

Anyway, yes, Russel Means. If memory serves correctly, Means ran on the

Libertarian Party ticket for governor of Arizona a couple years ago.

Chris

[Guest guest]

slethnobotanist@... wrote:

>>>> Other than you folks, I have not met anyone who admitted to being

>>>> Libertarian, except Penn and Teller (whose philosophies in most

>>>> things I like).

Must have something to do with the effect of the brain finally getting

the nutrition it needs. was the first to succumb because he eats

so much; it's only a matter of time for the rest of you.

[Guest guest]

Means? He was and may still be one of the original founders of the

American Indian Movement. All Native American tribes in the U.S. try to

maintain to this day what's left of their egalitarian, pre contact way of

life despite the bureauracracy of agencies and U.S. government appointed

chiefs. Last I read few years back Mr. Means had assaulted his Navajo wife's

parents on the reservation, was to go before tribal court for traditional

justice under tribal law, refused and was trying to bring it to a U.S.

federal court, as the federal government only has jurisdiction over

reservations which are sovereign nations within the country.

Understand the personal autonomy of both libertarianism and egalitarianism.

The difference is as I see it, egalitarianism is backed by an ethic, ethos

or known way the tribe will continue to survive. It is known the personal

consequences of crossing those boundaries. Abusing elders is not acceptable

behavior in any egalitarian tribe or family. Exception is when an elder or

anyone abuses the tribe's autonomy by taking authority or status without it

being given. In instances of deviance from the ethos, assumed authority

being the worst threat, reverse hierarchy (the basis of egalitarianism) is

then exercised by all tribal members, they talk, reach democratic consensus

(in this case a respected, trusted tribal justice system) and choose how to

get the message through to the offender. Preemptive measures include

shunning, not talking to, visiting, working with and ostracizing, putting

down verbally. Deserting (hunter gatherers did from dangerous leaders,

Geronimo, Apache chief was deserted as his warriors felt he was bringing

them all to be killed), banishing, temporary or permanent expulsion from the

tribe or death,only with assumed or fear producing, recidivist murdering

authority or a shaman using ways that produced fear.

How and why could one be excused from consequences of such a situation under

libertarianism?

Wanita

From: <slethnobotanist@...>

> Complete list, covering large segments of our society (and many names

> with links), can be found here:

>

> Means

[Guest guest]

Wanita Sears wrote:

> Means? He was and may still be one of the original founders

> of the American Indian Movement. All Native American tribes in the

> U.S. try to maintain to this day what's left of their egalitarian,

> pre contact way of life despite the bureauracracy of agencies and

> U.S. government appointed chiefs. Last I read few years back Mr.

> Means had assaulted his Navajo wife's parents on the reservation, was

> to go before tribal court for traditional justice under tribal law,

> refused and was trying to bring it to a U.S. federal court, as the

> federal government only has jurisdiction over reservations which are

> sovereign nations within the country.

>

> How and why could one be excused from consequences of such a

> situation under libertarianism?

I know nothing about this incident, and very little about Means.

Assuming that what you have heard is true, then it should be obvious

that he would not (intentionally) be allowed to escape the consequences

of his actions in a libertarian society. The fact that someone

identifies himself as a libertarian doesn't necessarily mean that all of

his actions are consistent with libertarian principles. Libertarians

certainly don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy, although I suppose it is

easier for a libertarian to behave hypocritically, since things like

theft and the initiation of force aren't actually inconsistent with the

political principles of non-libertarians (Is a leftist a hypocrite if he

doesn't steal from the rich?). It is worth noting that he was able to

escape the consequences of his actions only with the help of the Federal

government.

Now, was that a serious question, or were you just trying to get a dig

in? Shall we go down a list of the crimes of famous Democrats and

Republicans and ask how and why their actions could be excused in a

society ruled by their principles?

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:25:53 -0500

" Wanita Sears " <wanitawa@...> wrote:

> Means? He was and may still be one of the original founders of the

>American Indian Movement. All Native American tribes in the U.S. try to

>maintain to this day what's left of their egalitarian, pre contact way of

>life despite the bureauracracy of agencies and U.S. government appointed

>chiefs.

<snip>

>How and why could one be excused from consequences of such a situation under

>libertarianism?

>

>Wanita

>

Not sure I fully understand what you are asking, but if the situation

above is a voluntary association, then it would by definition be

libertarian, regardless of the manner in which it was organized.

Yes, Means is a self-professed libertarian. Below are some

quotes attributed to him:

" Freedom is for everyone, whatever lifestyle they choose, as long as it's

peaceful and honest -- from high-tech entrepreneur to hippie in a

commune and everyone in between...

" American Indians are caught in the same dilemma as libertarians.

We're neither left nor right. We're just for freedom. The left only came

around when they needed martyrs. When we wouldn't be martyrs, they

abandoned us.

" I'm for a free market. I only oppose the misuse of technology.

A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by

pollution because it insists on individual responsibility. That's part

of the beauty of libertarianism. "

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

slethnobotanist@... wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:25:53 -0500

> " Wanita Sears " <wanitawa@...> wrote:

>> How and why could one be excused from consequences of such a

>> situation under libertarianism?

>

> Not sure I fully understand what you are asking, but if the situation

> above is a voluntary association, then it would by definition be

> libertarian, regardless of the manner in which it was organized.

I'm fairly certain that he's talking about tribal justice, rather than

assault. Your fragmented style of writing tends to lead to

misunderstandings.

[Guest guest]

,

> I know nothing about this incident, and very little about Means.

> Assuming that what you have heard is true,

Was an Arizona newspaper online.

> Now, was that a serious question, or were you just trying to get a dig

> in?

Was serious, an example that could be a comparison. Being born Native

American, living your life supporting the principles and rights of the

people, marrying in, breaking what should be known ethics no matter what

reservation you're on, then using another system/s in order to maybe avoid

or lessen the consequences is pretty unbelievable to me.

>Shall we go down a list of the crimes of famous Democrats and

> Republicans and ask how and why their actions could be excused in a

> society ruled by their principles?

List bandwidth quadrupled at least would not be good.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Why does a come on over, conversion spiel not surprise me? Won't work with

anyone who has any sense of personal autonomy.

> That's exactly why Libertarianism is appropriate for Native Americans.

> Libertarianism allows people to engage in whatever kind of voluntary

associations

> they want, and thus allows for both individualist and collectivist social

> arrangements.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Don't know what a voluntary association is. When you marry into a tribe

there is no other ethic other than that tribe's ethic while you're in their

boundaries under tribal law. Either way just being there, you're in a

different place than your own, where there is likely an ethic that could be

different than your's that could or could not be acceptable behavior.

Reservations are countries within the continent.

Wanita

> slethnobotanist@... wrote:

> > Not sure I fully understand what you are asking, but if the situation

> > above is a voluntary association, then it would by definition be

> > libertarian, regardless of the manner in which it was organized.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/04 8:30:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Why does a come on over, conversion spiel not surprise me? Won't work with

> anyone who has any sense of personal autonomy.

>

> >That's exactly why Libertarianism is appropriate for Native Americans.

> >Libertarianism allows people to engage in whatever kind of voluntary

> associations

> >they want, and thus allows for both individualist and collectivist social

> >arrangements.

Since mentioned that your writing style can lead to

misunderstandings, I'll the opportunity to point out I have absolutely no idea

what you just

said. I'll try to pinpoint the precise comprehension problems I'm having:

--I don't know what the meaning of " come on over " is when used as an

adjective

--I don't know what you're referring to as a " conversion spiel " , or who wrote

one. I have the vague feeling you're referring to what I wrote, but I have

absolutely no idea what the characteristics of my message were that lead you to

describe it in that way.

--Since I don't know what the " conversion spiel " is, I don't know what " won't

work. "

--I don't know what your definition of " personal autonomy. " If you are using

the sense that a dictionary would use, it would seem that you're advocating a

Libertarian view point. It's hard to tell, since I don't know what the

" conversion spiel " is, and thus whether you are alligning yourself for it or

against it. You say it " won't work for... " but I don't know whether you are

lamenting that your position wouldn't be accepted by a libertarian, or whether

you

are insinuating that the libertarian argument " won't work. " --Preciesely

because you've defined neither the " spiel " nor the person with a " sense of

personal

autonomy.

And because of all this, I don't even know whether you are agreeing with me

or arguing against me. I assume the latter, but there's nothing in your

statement that actually makes this clear.

If you are disagreeing, I can't help but believe that you have some

considerable misunderstandings of Libertarianism.

You advocate a collectivism and egalitarianism. Libertarianism doesn't not

conflict in any way with collectivism whatsoever. It only conflicts with

*forced* libertarianism. In a libertarian society, both individuals and groups

have autonomy. And if people voluntarily associate in a group, that group can

have autonomy as a collectivist entity.

Thus, both the socialist and the capitalist can have what they want

side-by-side, each participating in the interactions of her or his choice with

those

who agree to such interactions. The tribe as well can operate with its

traditional tribal mechanisms, without interference with the government.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Don't know what a voluntary association is. When you marry into a tribe

>there is no other ethic other than that tribe's ethic while you're in their

>boundaries under tribal law. Either way just being there, you're in a

>different place than your own, where there is likely an ethic that could be

>different than your's that could or could not be acceptable behavior.

>Reservations are countries within the continent.

>

>Wanita

You know, this is a very good point. In a tribal society, personal choice

is very limited about a lot of things ... how to dress, what to eat, how

to prepare food, who to marry even. It might not FEEL as limited if you

don't have a TV to see how everyone else lives.

I read something from a lady who lived with a tribe as a missionary.

She said folks assumed that because the tribe was mostly naked

and had different standards than the whites, that they were licentious

and undisciplined. In fact, she said, they had just as many rules

about how to do everything ... they were just different rules.

-- Heidi